|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
|
County Counsel
|
|
|
DATE:
|
July 14, 2008
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
July 22, 2008
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
None
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
FROM:
|
Michael P. Murphy, County Counsel
|
SUBJECT:
|
Report on Options to Allow Board of Supervisors’ Action with Respect to Elected Officials
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Receive the report on Review of Options to Allow Board of Supervisors’ Action with Respect to Elected Officials, and provide direction for further action.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.
Goal(s): Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
At its meeting of April 22, 2008, the Board directed the County Counsel’s Office to report back with information concerning what actions the Board might take to provide more oversight of the conduct of County elected officials. Specifically, the Board requested that the County Counsel explore the options of creating an independent ethics commission and amending the San Mateo County Charter to provide greater oversight.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
The attached report details the results of our review. The review included research of existing laws that govern oversight and discipline of elected officials; collection of existing regulations of selected counties and cities, with particular attention to charter counties; and discussions with representatives of selected entities. The report outlines two basic approaches: (1) consideration of allegations of serious official misconduct directly by the Board of Supervisors, and (2) appointment of an “ethics commission” to investigate and recommend possible action to the Board based on serious official misconduct. Our review concludes that there is currently no authority for the Board to remove an elected official under the County Charter and that, even with a Charter amendment providing the Board with that authority, the State Constitution does not authorize discipline of elected officials short of removal. Finally, the report acknowledges existing methods of removal under state law, including removal upon conviction for specified crimes, and removal by accusation returned by the civil grand jury for “willful or corrupt misconduct in office”.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
The fiscal impact will vary depending on the specific approach taken by the Board, if any. A charter amendment may cost up to $50,000 or more, depending on the number of matters on the ballot.
|